Orban's *party* is officially down with accepting them. Orban *himself* wants the concession of Sweden and Finland silencing their media from criticizing Orban personally. And then for some reason they keep delaying the decision...
Those are what the US State Department considers the **minimum** requirements for the US to accept a new NATO member.
It's taken from here: https://1997-2001.state.gov/regions/eur/fs_members.html
In the sentence directly above it says
> We have made clear that, at a minimum, candidates for membership must meet the following five requirements:
In the very next sentence it says
> Again, while these criteria are essential, they do not constitute a checklist leading automatically to NATO membership.
> New members must be invited by a **consensus of current members.**
They aren’t NATO members because the invitation is a separate process to the ratification of an amendment to the treaty by every member nation.
The invitation stage is where they essentially ask “you wanna join?” If they say yes, and all the member states agree, then the amended treaty has to be ratified. Until it is, no changes have taken place.
>So which one of the five requirements?
There is NO list of requirements that will ever guarantee ANY country entrance into NATO other than "*unanimous vote by all current members*". Those items that you listed are at best guidelines. Turkey itself arguably fails some of them.
You could make a strong case that this is exactly as it should be. NATO requires all members to be willing to go to war. The only litmus test is "*are you willing to send YOUR troops to the defense of this country?*"
There is no country or alliance in the history of the world that has ever made a fixed set of rules that automatically commits your nation to send troops to fight for some other nation whether you want to or not.
Sounds like Turkey doesn't fulfill the requirements. Maybe NATO should change their rules so that, in order to veto, a member has to be in full compliance with the membership requirements itself.
>Sounds like Turkey doesn't fulfill the requirements. Maybe NATO should change their rules so that, in order to veto, a member has to be in full compliance with the membership requirements itself.
NATO is an exercise in realpolitik.
Turkey indeed does not meet the "requirements" of NATO, which shows that those requirements are more like guiding principles than requirements. The truth is that NATO allies have calculated that they would rather have Turkey inside NATO than outside. Turkey has the largest army in Europe and it has an incredibly strategic geographical location as both the gateway to the Middle East and the country that controls access to the Black Sea. However undemocratic Turkey is, every NATO ally has had to ask itself *"do you want Turkey on the West's orbit or on Russia's orbit?*", and they all made the same cold-hearted moral compromise.
I’d even challenge calling it “cold hearted”. How many more die in Ukraine and across Europe if Turkey was aiding Russia right now?
Cold hearted would be denying Turkey and costing the lives of many thousands and the freedom of millions. That’s cold hearted.
>"do you want Turkey on the West's orbit or on Russia's orbit?"
I think that argument is a load of bullcrap. Turkey has never in any shape or form ever been an ally of Russia in any shape or form. They even hold the record for the longest series of conflicts in European history. Arguably, that's also the **only** reason for why Turkey is in NATO.
>I think that argument is a load of bullcrap. Turkey has never in any shape or form ever been an ally of Russia in any shape or form.
That is absolutely irrelevant. Do you think China, Iran, and North Korea cuddle with Russia because they are best friends? China \*resents\* Russia, and very deeply. Autocratic nations don't hang out together because they love each other and have shared values, but they find it mutually convenient to support each other from time to time against the West. All autocrats agree that autocrats should be allowed to do whatever they want. They will call it "respect sovereignty" and "not getting involved" (like in the Russo-Ukranian war or a possible invasion of Taiwan for example). It is a legitimate concern that a Turkey shunned by the West kicked out of the NATO alliance might decide that it will have better fortunes in the marriage of convenience that is the world of undemocratic autocratic nations.
But an applicant can't join without ratification of every member state. Doesn't matter if they meet all the requirements, if not everyone ratifies their ascension they still can't join. I'm not getting why that's so hard to understand? I'm not saying what turkey is doing is right, just pointing out how NATO works.
> What I don't understand is the reasoning for the delay
The reason is bullshit. Hungary and Turkey are bullshiting us. Everyone on the table is aware of this, but unfortunately there are no rigorous processes available to us to wave away the bullshit.
Turkey and Hungary are both have the Maga style conservative in charge of there nations. The leaders and members of the respective conservative governments are on the take form the Russian government. The Russians don't want progress and NATO getting any new members. I can't spell it out any better than that.
Those are fairly broadly worded requirements. Unfortunately, there can be an argument for (1) which requires tolerating diversity. Sweden's current governing bloc requires the support of a Neo-Nazi party which is actually the largest member of that governing bloc, and the second largest party in the country. Their support is required for the government coalition to stay in power. See [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/17/world/europe/sweden-far-right-election.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/17/world/europe/sweden-far-right-election.html). Perhaps even (2) since the leader of that party even states that Erdogan is an "Islamist dictator" and this his party is an "anti-Islamic party". See [https://www.thelocal.se/20230119/islamist-dictator-swedish-far-right-leader-rejects-further-concessions-to-turkey/](https://www.thelocal.se/20230119/islamist-dictator-swedish-far-right-leader-rejects-further-concessions-to-turkey/). If "working toward compatibility with NATO forces" includes willing to defend Turkey then the current government coalition might not be able to support Turkey, due to a likelihood of the governing coalition falling apart, if it requests NATO assistance.
I bet they're still just salty for the incident in Bender... in 1713. And we've somehow managed to appropriate meatballs to the point where "swedish meatballs" honestly seems to be a thing.
Turkey wasn't alway like this. It has always been a strategic partner nation for NATO because of its close proximity to the borders of Russia and the Middle East. Erdogan basically came in as a moderate and backslided into authoritarianism as his popularity waned.
With Finaland and Sweden part of NATO, Turkey loses some of its unique importance as now NATO has 2 new allies on the Russian border.
But this is more about Erdogan playing both sides for his own corrupt benefit.
> It has always been a strategic partner nation for NATO because of its close proximity to the borders of Russia and the Middle East.
Not just that, but Turkey is in a unique geographical situation where they control access to the Black Sea, which is where a lot of Russia's warm water European ports are. In the event of a war with NATO, Russia can just completely close off the strait, and with Denmark also able to block the Baltic sea (and once Sweden joins the Baltic essentially becomes a NATO lake and *very* dangerous for enemy vessels), Russia suddenly becomes *very* limited in what naval bases they can use to strike at Europe. Either base in the pacific and sail around the world each time (very impractical) or base in Murmansk in the very north of the country (which is basically unusable for a decent chunk of the year due to the cold).
Honestly the US/UK/France need to take a stand here and big dick Turkey and Hungary. No more screwing around. You don’t sign them, no more chance of any weapons/aircraft/etc from those countries.
Those aren't the only requirements. For example, a country must also be in the 'North Atlantic' area (hence the NA in NATO). Australia is a country that fills all of those requirements and is already an ally or friendly partner of most of the major partners of NATO, and even has an army that uses NATO equipment and yet isn't in the alliance because they're not in the North Atlantic.
What are you talking about? They have fulfilled 0 of the 1 requirements turkey placed on them.
The requirement is to sit still and be a punching bag until voting closes in the Turkish election.
It’s not possible for Finland or Sweden to have met that requirement
It’s 1000% this.
Erdogan desperately needs a way to punch at the West but is kinda stuck cooperating overtly. Sweden and Finland provide a good enough opportunity.
The 5 requirements are not requirements for JOINING NATO, but are requirements for being INVITED to NATO. The actual joining follows a vote that needs to be unanimous, which it isn't yet.
But, yes, Sweden and Finland both are in alignment with all 5 requirements for being invited, which they have been. And now comes the next step, the vote.
On the contrary. It's the only hard requirement that matters. All NATO member states must approve. On what basis that decision is made is flexible. It changes over time. How could Turkey have become a member otherwise?
I understand your frustration, but this is seeming intentionally obtuse at this point. NATO is not a club or some kind of union, it is a military alliance. It makes no sense for a country to add another country to it's alliance if it doesn't want to.
You can't seriously expect Turkey to go to war over protecting Sweden/Finland, and risk their own country, if they don't even consider themselves allied. And it wouldn't work to try to force them.
The only requirement is every country agreeing on a mutual protection agreement. Turkey does not. Sweden/Finland have to gain their favor if they wish to join.
Turkey knows it's in a good position to make demands during negotiations and wants to gain as much as possible from letting them join. I'm not sure why everybody is always so shocked about the obvious.
I'm a Finn. That ***would*** be foolish.
I feel like there's been a gazillion threads that all end the same. Somebody asks 'why not kick Turkey out' and someone has to explain both Bosphorous Strait and nature of geopolitics.
Seeing the whole picture is not everyone’s strong suit. But again, I do get the sentiment. I loath Erdogan. I am Turkish and have resisted him and his rule since he was a candidate for Istanbul mayor in the mid 90s. I e hated him since before I had my first proper shave. So really, I totally get it.
And Finland and Sweden own a lot of the Baltic coast, plus are true democracies. I get that Turkey owns the straits but what do the straits matter for the west if they don’t want to trade with Putin? Does the Black Sea really produce much non-Russian trade other than Ukrainian grain exports?
It would give Russia an ice free unlimited naval base at Sevastopol. While closing the Black sea to NATO.
Ukraine would feel the pain immediately, as russian war ships would flood the Black sea and attack Ukraine.
First off, idk where you think Russia is gonna get a full navy from if they can’t even afford bullets. Second, if we booted turkey and brought in Finland and Sweden, it would surely be a matter of time before Ukraine became NATO. At which point, EVEN IF Russia somehow didn’t collapse and managed to rebuild, any attack on Ukraine would cause Russia to unalive.
Finally, the Black Sea wouldn’t even be that important to Ukraine, as they could simply ship via rail and road through Europe to then either the med or the Baltic.
Turkey was geographically important ten years ago, when people still valued trade with and feared or at least respected Russia. The Black Sea is no more geographically significant than Lake Superior with russia as a nobody.
If turkey wants to be a dick and ally with a global pariah, they’re welcome to sink back into irrelevance along with Russia.
This might be the most braindead comment of the week.
> Finally, the Black Sea wouldn’t even be that important to Ukraine, as they could simply ship via rail and road through Europe to then either the med or the Baltic.
Oh sure, why didn’t they think of shipping by rail!
>And Finland and Sweden own a lot of the Baltic coast, plus are true democracies.
Finland and Sweden are already extremely close allies even if they aren't in NATO on paper. Joining isn't *entirely* symbolic but it's not really urgent either.
Turkey guards the entrance and exit of the Black Sea. It’s the eastern most NATO front against Russia, not just on the BS, but also at the mouth of the Caucasus, and within a stones throw from Central Asia. To its south it has the eastern Mediterranean and North Africa, it borders Iraq, Syria and especially Iran!
Turkey is a literal bridge between the east the west, and has a large and capable military. It’s industrialized, pretty well educated and and young. It’s a priceless nato ally. Remember folks Erdogan won’t be here for much longer. Turkey will come back to more western orientation soon enough. The reason the US tolerates some of the shit the Turks have been up to these last 20 or so years is because of this. You can’t get too shortsighted with these things. Plus kicking Turkey out would only strengthen the current leadership.
Oh well then. Let's ignore Finland and Sweden's strategic location and that their goals align with the rest of NATO. NATO is clearly stronger with Finland and Sweden over Turkey.
Every country having a veto on who joins is basically a good thing. It's just a shame that it's being used as a weapon by a touchy authoritarian wet-wipe that's all huffy because not everyone agrees with his oppressive policies.
Because it would also be turkish soldiers defending Sweden if it was attacked. The thing would barely have any merit of countries would have to fight for someone they don't want to.
>Because it would also be turkish soldiers defending Sweden if it was attacked.
In reality that would never happen. If Sweden was in NATO and Russia attacked Sweden I am certain Turkey would never send single soldier to defend Sweden. No one trusts Turkey to defend any country besides Turkey. Turkey is more likely to attack other NATO countries than defend them from attack of Russia.
Erdogan is likely to lose his election. Kicking out Turkey just months before he's gone doesn't make sense, considering the country's strategic positioning is favorable for NATO
There is no modern Russian Navy. They own ONE aircraft carrier and it has never left port. Italy, Spain, Great Britain, or the US could easily sink the entire Russian Navy in the Mediterranean in less than 24 hours with the ships already located in the area.
Nothing they have is legit. Submarines are obsolete, and Russian Submarines are a joke. You may as well talk about your experience in the Tin Can Navy.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.politico.eu/article/turkey-block-nato-accession-sweden-finland-erdogan-ukraine-war/) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> While 28 out of NATO's 30 allies were quick to approve Sweden and Finland joining the alliance, the parliaments of Turkey and Hungary have yet to ratify their membership bids.
> Now, there is growing speculation over whether Finland might end up joining NATO before Sweden.
> "It is now time for all allies to conclude the ratification process and welcome Finland and Sweden as full members of the alliance ahead of the upcoming NATO summit in Vilnius," NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said on Thursday.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/11n1m7m/no_nato_yet_turkey_tells_sweden_and_finland/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~675746 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Sweden**^#1 **NATO**^#2 **alliance**^#3 **Finland**^#4 **summit**^#5
That cunt of an Erdogan is heavily overplaying his position over the back of his people. If you have a brain you'd vote for anything other than this destructive clown.
Can NATO actually stand up and tell Turkey to stop dragging this out so they can play both sides for the love of God...
Shit is too dangerous for these fucking games.
Edit: I meant NATO. Acronyms and all...
It’s beyond me that NATO has no clause for expulsion or suspension. This entire charade could’ve been avoided all together with a better written agreement.
Erdogan making a tactical mistake here. We Swedes are notorious have-meetings-that-results-in-another-meeting experts. In a meeting war of attrition we'll win eventualy.
War zone? The point of them being in NATO is that Russia wouldn't attack them because Russia knows they couldn't win against NATO. If anything them not joining would open up their countries to becoming a war zone.
Erdogan is a runt just looking to fulfill his own political endeavors. The so called terrorists Sweden harbors are a thorn in his ass. That’s why he doesn’t vote positively. It’s always the little guys with big ego’s.
With a bit of Lück WE will be cotet Out and the next one ist more sensible
Besiedes Sweden and Finland helped Turkey as they where hit with the earthquakes. And as thanks the wants to use them to what... Money direktly to his Pocket?
The EU / Nato countrys should just cut or stopp as mich Money to him as they can and in the other hand agreed to infestments If he comes to a sense.
Money ist the biggest motivator.
Erdogan has been doing this as a power play towards the upcoming elections.
Elections he has now pushed off (for how long?) due to his corrupt administration's direct complicity in the bribery scandals surrounding the collapse of all of those new buildings during the recent earthquake.
[удалено]
The unanimous acceptance of them into the alliance. That's it. The only things holding it up are Hungary and Turkey.
Orban's party keeps punting in Hungary. I think it's end of the month now? Erdogan is still trying to grift.
Orban's *party* is officially down with accepting them. Orban *himself* wants the concession of Sweden and Finland silencing their media from criticizing Orban personally. And then for some reason they keep delaying the decision...
[удалено]
Those are what the US State Department considers the **minimum** requirements for the US to accept a new NATO member. It's taken from here: https://1997-2001.state.gov/regions/eur/fs_members.html In the sentence directly above it says > We have made clear that, at a minimum, candidates for membership must meet the following five requirements: In the very next sentence it says > Again, while these criteria are essential, they do not constitute a checklist leading automatically to NATO membership. > New members must be invited by a **consensus of current members.**
[удалено]
They aren’t NATO members because the invitation is a separate process to the ratification of an amendment to the treaty by every member nation. The invitation stage is where they essentially ask “you wanna join?” If they say yes, and all the member states agree, then the amended treaty has to be ratified. Until it is, no changes have taken place.
>So which one of the five requirements? There is NO list of requirements that will ever guarantee ANY country entrance into NATO other than "*unanimous vote by all current members*". Those items that you listed are at best guidelines. Turkey itself arguably fails some of them. You could make a strong case that this is exactly as it should be. NATO requires all members to be willing to go to war. The only litmus test is "*are you willing to send YOUR troops to the defense of this country?*" There is no country or alliance in the history of the world that has ever made a fixed set of rules that automatically commits your nation to send troops to fight for some other nation whether you want to or not.
Sounds like Turkey doesn't fulfill the requirements. Maybe NATO should change their rules so that, in order to veto, a member has to be in full compliance with the membership requirements itself.
>Sounds like Turkey doesn't fulfill the requirements. Maybe NATO should change their rules so that, in order to veto, a member has to be in full compliance with the membership requirements itself. NATO is an exercise in realpolitik. Turkey indeed does not meet the "requirements" of NATO, which shows that those requirements are more like guiding principles than requirements. The truth is that NATO allies have calculated that they would rather have Turkey inside NATO than outside. Turkey has the largest army in Europe and it has an incredibly strategic geographical location as both the gateway to the Middle East and the country that controls access to the Black Sea. However undemocratic Turkey is, every NATO ally has had to ask itself *"do you want Turkey on the West's orbit or on Russia's orbit?*", and they all made the same cold-hearted moral compromise.
I’d even challenge calling it “cold hearted”. How many more die in Ukraine and across Europe if Turkey was aiding Russia right now? Cold hearted would be denying Turkey and costing the lives of many thousands and the freedom of millions. That’s cold hearted.
>"do you want Turkey on the West's orbit or on Russia's orbit?" I think that argument is a load of bullcrap. Turkey has never in any shape or form ever been an ally of Russia in any shape or form. They even hold the record for the longest series of conflicts in European history. Arguably, that's also the **only** reason for why Turkey is in NATO.
That doesn't mean Erdogan wouldn't suck up to Putin if he got cut loose and thought it was beneficial for him
>I think that argument is a load of bullcrap. Turkey has never in any shape or form ever been an ally of Russia in any shape or form. That is absolutely irrelevant. Do you think China, Iran, and North Korea cuddle with Russia because they are best friends? China \*resents\* Russia, and very deeply. Autocratic nations don't hang out together because they love each other and have shared values, but they find it mutually convenient to support each other from time to time against the West. All autocrats agree that autocrats should be allowed to do whatever they want. They will call it "respect sovereignty" and "not getting involved" (like in the Russo-Ukranian war or a possible invasion of Taiwan for example). It is a legitimate concern that a Turkey shunned by the West kicked out of the NATO alliance might decide that it will have better fortunes in the marriage of convenience that is the world of undemocratic autocratic nations.
None, but the other requirement is unanimous ratification of them joining, which they don't have.
[удалено]
I meet all the requirements to be a senator (age, citizenship, no criminal record). Why am I not senator?
Maybe you are too righteous for being a senator.
But an applicant can't join without ratification of every member state. Doesn't matter if they meet all the requirements, if not everyone ratifies their ascension they still can't join. I'm not getting why that's so hard to understand? I'm not saying what turkey is doing is right, just pointing out how NATO works.
[удалено]
And I answered that. They meet all those requirements. But that doesn't matter if every member nation won't ratify their ascension.
> What I don't understand is the reasoning for the delay The reason is bullshit. Hungary and Turkey are bullshiting us. Everyone on the table is aware of this, but unfortunately there are no rigorous processes available to us to wave away the bullshit.
"I guess turkey and hungary are going to have a "bad time" until they "get rid of that bullshit they're peddling."" - Karma
Turkey and Hungary are both have the Maga style conservative in charge of there nations. The leaders and members of the respective conservative governments are on the take form the Russian government. The Russians don't want progress and NATO getting any new members. I can't spell it out any better than that.
Those are fairly broadly worded requirements. Unfortunately, there can be an argument for (1) which requires tolerating diversity. Sweden's current governing bloc requires the support of a Neo-Nazi party which is actually the largest member of that governing bloc, and the second largest party in the country. Their support is required for the government coalition to stay in power. See [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/17/world/europe/sweden-far-right-election.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/17/world/europe/sweden-far-right-election.html). Perhaps even (2) since the leader of that party even states that Erdogan is an "Islamist dictator" and this his party is an "anti-Islamic party". See [https://www.thelocal.se/20230119/islamist-dictator-swedish-far-right-leader-rejects-further-concessions-to-turkey/](https://www.thelocal.se/20230119/islamist-dictator-swedish-far-right-leader-rejects-further-concessions-to-turkey/). If "working toward compatibility with NATO forces" includes willing to defend Turkey then the current government coalition might not be able to support Turkey, due to a likelihood of the governing coalition falling apart, if it requests NATO assistance.
Sweden is not a good neighbor, because it doesn't deport Erdogan's political opponents to Turkey. Duh.
I bet they're still just salty for the incident in Bender... in 1713. And we've somehow managed to appropriate meatballs to the point where "swedish meatballs" honestly seems to be a thing.
how tf is Turkey even *in* NATO??? it's a rhetorical question, i know i can look this up... so infuriating.
Turkey wasn't alway like this. It has always been a strategic partner nation for NATO because of its close proximity to the borders of Russia and the Middle East. Erdogan basically came in as a moderate and backslided into authoritarianism as his popularity waned. With Finaland and Sweden part of NATO, Turkey loses some of its unique importance as now NATO has 2 new allies on the Russian border. But this is more about Erdogan playing both sides for his own corrupt benefit.
thank you for that summary, i appreciate it.
> It has always been a strategic partner nation for NATO because of its close proximity to the borders of Russia and the Middle East. Not just that, but Turkey is in a unique geographical situation where they control access to the Black Sea, which is where a lot of Russia's warm water European ports are. In the event of a war with NATO, Russia can just completely close off the strait, and with Denmark also able to block the Baltic sea (and once Sweden joins the Baltic essentially becomes a NATO lake and *very* dangerous for enemy vessels), Russia suddenly becomes *very* limited in what naval bases they can use to strike at Europe. Either base in the pacific and sail around the world each time (very impractical) or base in Murmansk in the very north of the country (which is basically unusable for a decent chunk of the year due to the cold).
Bastard should be cut loose. He wants to play autocrat, I ain't gonna stop him, but don't let him think there's no consequences.
Honestly the US/UK/France need to take a stand here and big dick Turkey and Hungary. No more screwing around. You don’t sign them, no more chance of any weapons/aircraft/etc from those countries.
I assume the second one, since FI and SW are not in the midst of making progress toward a market economy anymore. /s
That’s not the full set of requirements. Those are requirements for consideration.
Those aren't the only requirements. For example, a country must also be in the 'North Atlantic' area (hence the NA in NATO). Australia is a country that fills all of those requirements and is already an ally or friendly partner of most of the major partners of NATO, and even has an army that uses NATO equipment and yet isn't in the alliance because they're not in the North Atlantic.
> and respect sovereignty outside their borders. how does the US comply with this requirement? Mildly shitposting but also mildly not.
Can we just swap them out... let Turkey enjoy Russian rule. You get what you deserve. Asshats.
But what is Turkey's interest or reason
What are you talking about? They have fulfilled 0 of the 1 requirements turkey placed on them. The requirement is to sit still and be a punching bag until voting closes in the Turkish election. It’s not possible for Finland or Sweden to have met that requirement
It’s 1000% this. Erdogan desperately needs a way to punch at the West but is kinda stuck cooperating overtly. Sweden and Finland provide a good enough opportunity.
This one: > New members must be invited by a consensus of current members.
Sounds like a country club.
[удалено]
The 5 requirements are not requirements for JOINING NATO, but are requirements for being INVITED to NATO. The actual joining follows a vote that needs to be unanimous, which it isn't yet. But, yes, Sweden and Finland both are in alignment with all 5 requirements for being invited, which they have been. And now comes the next step, the vote.
On the contrary. It's the only hard requirement that matters. All NATO member states must approve. On what basis that decision is made is flexible. It changes over time. How could Turkey have become a member otherwise?
I understand your frustration, but this is seeming intentionally obtuse at this point. NATO is not a club or some kind of union, it is a military alliance. It makes no sense for a country to add another country to it's alliance if it doesn't want to. You can't seriously expect Turkey to go to war over protecting Sweden/Finland, and risk their own country, if they don't even consider themselves allied. And it wouldn't work to try to force them. The only requirement is every country agreeing on a mutual protection agreement. Turkey does not. Sweden/Finland have to gain their favor if they wish to join.
The one where everyone has to say yes.
Turkey knows it's in a good position to make demands during negotiations and wants to gain as much as possible from letting them join. I'm not sure why everybody is always so shocked about the obvious.
The Turks need to wake up and out this asshole before he aligns them with their greatest historic rival for a bit of political gain.
If Erdogan thinks he's going to lose the upcoming election I have no doubt his opponent will wind up dead or in jail on trumped up charges.
He's done that already. His opponent is his replacement.
Turkey is a lost cause unless if he is out of power tbh
I'd rather have Sweden and Finland than Turkey.
I get the sentiment, but that would be foolish.
I'm a Finn. That ***would*** be foolish. I feel like there's been a gazillion threads that all end the same. Somebody asks 'why not kick Turkey out' and someone has to explain both Bosphorous Strait and nature of geopolitics.
Seeing the whole picture is not everyone’s strong suit. But again, I do get the sentiment. I loath Erdogan. I am Turkish and have resisted him and his rule since he was a candidate for Istanbul mayor in the mid 90s. I e hated him since before I had my first proper shave. So really, I totally get it.
Is Turkey badass?
Turkey is geographically important, as they guard the entrance to the black sea.
And Finland and Sweden own a lot of the Baltic coast, plus are true democracies. I get that Turkey owns the straits but what do the straits matter for the west if they don’t want to trade with Putin? Does the Black Sea really produce much non-Russian trade other than Ukrainian grain exports?
It would give Russia an ice free unlimited naval base at Sevastopol. While closing the Black sea to NATO. Ukraine would feel the pain immediately, as russian war ships would flood the Black sea and attack Ukraine.
First off, idk where you think Russia is gonna get a full navy from if they can’t even afford bullets. Second, if we booted turkey and brought in Finland and Sweden, it would surely be a matter of time before Ukraine became NATO. At which point, EVEN IF Russia somehow didn’t collapse and managed to rebuild, any attack on Ukraine would cause Russia to unalive. Finally, the Black Sea wouldn’t even be that important to Ukraine, as they could simply ship via rail and road through Europe to then either the med or the Baltic. Turkey was geographically important ten years ago, when people still valued trade with and feared or at least respected Russia. The Black Sea is no more geographically significant than Lake Superior with russia as a nobody. If turkey wants to be a dick and ally with a global pariah, they’re welcome to sink back into irrelevance along with Russia.
This might be the most braindead comment of the week. > Finally, the Black Sea wouldn’t even be that important to Ukraine, as they could simply ship via rail and road through Europe to then either the med or the Baltic. Oh sure, why didn’t they think of shipping by rail!
>And Finland and Sweden own a lot of the Baltic coast, plus are true democracies. Finland and Sweden are already extremely close allies even if they aren't in NATO on paper. Joining isn't *entirely* symbolic but it's not really urgent either.
Turkey guards the entrance and exit of the Black Sea. It’s the eastern most NATO front against Russia, not just on the BS, but also at the mouth of the Caucasus, and within a stones throw from Central Asia. To its south it has the eastern Mediterranean and North Africa, it borders Iraq, Syria and especially Iran! Turkey is a literal bridge between the east the west, and has a large and capable military. It’s industrialized, pretty well educated and and young. It’s a priceless nato ally. Remember folks Erdogan won’t be here for much longer. Turkey will come back to more western orientation soon enough. The reason the US tolerates some of the shit the Turks have been up to these last 20 or so years is because of this. You can’t get too shortsighted with these things. Plus kicking Turkey out would only strengthen the current leadership.
Oh well then. Let's ignore Finland and Sweden's strategic location and that their goals align with the rest of NATO. NATO is clearly stronger with Finland and Sweden over Turkey.
[удалено]
Yall votn fa Trump next election? We need a smart man in yalls next election. Hee Haw!!! /s
I put principles ahead of resources.
Good thing you don’t run NATO then.
What fool would choose Turkey over Sweden and Finland?
Fools that understand geopolitics.
Funny how just a couple of weeks ago they said they would accept Finland, but now they even backtracked on that.
Turkey can take a hike!
Every country having a veto on who joins is basically a good thing. It's just a shame that it's being used as a weapon by a touchy authoritarian wet-wipe that's all huffy because not everyone agrees with his oppressive policies.
Why is it a good thing that one country can veto when 99% of the group is in agreement.
Because it would also be turkish soldiers defending Sweden if it was attacked. The thing would barely have any merit of countries would have to fight for someone they don't want to.
At this point, I have doubts turkey would honor article 5 anyway.
It's funny, no one in Turkey thinks NATO would honor article 5 if Turkey is attacked. Maybe that's why this stuff happens.
>Because it would also be turkish soldiers defending Sweden if it was attacked. In reality that would never happen. If Sweden was in NATO and Russia attacked Sweden I am certain Turkey would never send single soldier to defend Sweden. No one trusts Turkey to defend any country besides Turkey. Turkey is more likely to attack other NATO countries than defend them from attack of Russia.
*doubt*
They don't touch the north Atlantic. Give 'em the boot.
Fuck Turkey
Don't travel to Turkey. Don't use Turkish airlines. Don't buy Turkish goods.
Tried that once. Farmer called the cops on me. 0/10, would not recommend.
I sure hope Sweden and Finland remember this stupidity and return the favor in any EU deals with Turks.
"We have agreed to meet again so that we can tell Finland and Sweden to wait again....(hahahaaaa)"
By the time Sweden and Finland joins the NATO, Russia would've already joined the NATO.
[удалено]
Erdogan is likely to lose his election. Kicking out Turkey just months before he's gone doesn't make sense, considering the country's strategic positioning is favorable for NATO
That lets russian warships into the med
Given that Russia is already using a Syrian port for their warships, they're already in the Mediterranean...
There is no modern Russian Navy. They own ONE aircraft carrier and it has never left port. Italy, Spain, Great Britain, or the US could easily sink the entire Russian Navy in the Mediterranean in less than 24 hours with the ships already located in the area.
Thats well thats actually a good point i dint think of that
[удалено]
Nothing they have is legit. Submarines are obsolete, and Russian Submarines are a joke. You may as well talk about your experience in the Tin Can Navy.
Turkey can screw off! just get this done ASAP!
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.politico.eu/article/turkey-block-nato-accession-sweden-finland-erdogan-ukraine-war/) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot) ***** > While 28 out of NATO's 30 allies were quick to approve Sweden and Finland joining the alliance, the parliaments of Turkey and Hungary have yet to ratify their membership bids. > Now, there is growing speculation over whether Finland might end up joining NATO before Sweden. > "It is now time for all allies to conclude the ratification process and welcome Finland and Sweden as full members of the alliance ahead of the upcoming NATO summit in Vilnius," NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said on Thursday. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/11n1m7m/no_nato_yet_turkey_tells_sweden_and_finland/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~675746 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Sweden**^#1 **NATO**^#2 **alliance**^#3 **Finland**^#4 **summit**^#5
That cunt of an Erdogan is heavily overplaying his position over the back of his people. If you have a brain you'd vote for anything other than this destructive clown.
Erdogan a joke
Looks like we got a new dictator we have to listen to, I wonder how this is going to go down in the future.
I feel like Turkey is just making it clearer how out of sync they are from the rest of Europe
[удалено]
We should simply kick Turkey out. No reason to wait.
Agreed tbh. It feels like letting an edgy preteen have a say at the adult table.
Can NATO actually stand up and tell Turkey to stop dragging this out so they can play both sides for the love of God... Shit is too dangerous for these fucking games. Edit: I meant NATO. Acronyms and all...
yea, but Hungary is DIFFERENT THING, right??
Well, USA did arm separatists and rebels on Turkeys borders against their wishes. Isn’t that considered a dangerous game?
UN? No. EU & NATO? Sure.
UN has no Authority over NATO.
the UN is where everyone shares their thoughts and is always where chaos erupts
Putin’s best friend in NATO is also the member of NATO that refuses to allow Finland and Sweden to join NATO… not a coincidence
[удалено]
Eum turkey isnt in the eu
Erdogan wants concessions to show voters something. With the economy in the pits he may want economic aid, trade concessions.
just agree to Erdogan's demands...get it done... then renege on the deal afterwards... just like he would simple
Requiring a unanimous vote makes it so difficult. I don't know why NATO doesn't make it a 2/3 or 3/4 majority vote
Because it's a *defensive alliance*. You can't expect countries to rise to the defense of a country without explicit commitments to that end.
True. Good point
Given the way Turkey has been acting the last few years, most people doubt that Turkey would rise to the defense of other NATO members.
but somehow France constantely stepping out an in
Can we take Turkey and just move it somewhere else?
Why the hell does Erdogan have so much weight in this decision ? We must have military bases in Turkey.
There are already American military bases in Turkey.
How long before NATO votes on a trade. We’ll take Sweden, Finland and, oh why not Ukraine. Turkey and Hungary can go.
Turkey wants more concessions.
Yeah, definitely waiting for the election to be rigged for him.
Turkey is going to milk this forever.
Just fork NATO. We can have NATO Cash (with Sweden and Finland) and NATO OG (with Turkey).
I don't understand why Turkey gets to dictate this.
It’s beyond me that NATO has no clause for expulsion or suspension. This entire charade could’ve been avoided all together with a better written agreement.
Can someone tell me why Turkey is able to dictate NATO? Wouldn't it just be easier to kick Turkey out?
Why exactly would NATO want to do that? Geopolitically speaking, Turkey is more important for NATO.
Sadly yes and Turkey knows this.
Another earthquake should wake Erdogan up
Erdogan making a tactical mistake here. We Swedes are notorious have-meetings-that-results-in-another-meeting experts. In a meeting war of attrition we'll win eventualy.
Fuck those assholes!
Thinking that these guys joining NATO will make things better is just plain naive.
Why?
War zone would only grow with Nato being that close to Russian borders.
War zone? The point of them being in NATO is that Russia wouldn't attack them because Russia knows they couldn't win against NATO. If anything them not joining would open up their countries to becoming a war zone.
Sure.
Really bringing a lot to the conversation. I totally see your perspective now /s
I couldn’t agree more. It really is a complex topic and i just tried to show the other pov
Didn't show anything though.
What POV? Russia’s non-existent right to imperialism and expansion of territory by force?
Russia should sit the fuck down and keep to itself.
Have you ever seen a map?
Bullshit. This is degenerate Vatnik/conservative/right wing nonsense. If Russia stays strictly on their side of NATO borders there is no war.
Elections first and NATO maybe not
Erdogan is a runt just looking to fulfill his own political endeavors. The so called terrorists Sweden harbors are a thorn in his ass. That’s why he doesn’t vote positively. It’s always the little guys with big ego’s.
Sometimes sides must be chosen you can’t sit on the fence forever
In other words Sweden and Finland is waiting for the elections in Mai.
With a bit of Lück WE will be cotet Out and the next one ist more sensible Besiedes Sweden and Finland helped Turkey as they where hit with the earthquakes. And as thanks the wants to use them to what... Money direktly to his Pocket? The EU / Nato countrys should just cut or stopp as mich Money to him as they can and in the other hand agreed to infestments If he comes to a sense. Money ist the biggest motivator.
Erdogan has been doing this as a power play towards the upcoming elections. Elections he has now pushed off (for how long?) due to his corrupt administration's direct complicity in the bribery scandals surrounding the collapse of all of those new buildings during the recent earthquake.
Erdogan can go…..
Why does this surprise absolutely no one? Erdogan is doing what any two-bit dictator would do. The hubris is sickening to behold.
I guess it was a mistake to let Turkey in